President Donald Trump’s recent feud with Elon Musk has brought attention to the president’s transactional view of the presidency. Trump threatened to terminate contracts for Musk’s companies after the two men fell out, signaling that staying in his favor would be the difference between favorable decisions by his administration and costly confrontations with it.
Trump’s actions have been compared to those of Richard Nixon, who also sought to use federal power to advance his personal and political interests. However, while Nixon’s threats were often discussed in private and met with resistance from within his own government, Trump’s threats are publicly delivered and have been met with little pushback.
Critics argue that Trump’s approach to the presidency is akin to a mafia-style protection racket, where those who meet the administration’s demands are offered protection from federal interference, and those who resist are met with dire consequences. Trump’s willingness to publicly deliver these threats changes their nature, exposing individuals and institutions to disruption and sending a shot across the bow of other institutions that might cross him.
Trump’s agenda has been described as an effort to weaken independent institutions and centralize power, going beyond personal animus. With a compliant Republican Congress and loyalist appointees in key law enforcement positions, Trump faces little constraint in pursuing his goals.
The courts remain a potential obstacle to Trump’s plans, but even if they block individual tactics, the effort required to rebuff his actions can impose a heavy cost on his targets. The Supreme Court’s decisions in the next few years will likely determine whether Trump can fulfill his ambitions.
“We are so far beyond Nixon’s inclinations and disposition to employ the government to attack perceived enemies and perceived political adversaries,” said John Dean, Nixon’s White House counsel during Watergate. “That it is the difference between spitballs and howitzers.”
As Trump’s presidency continues, concerns about the implications of his transactional approach and the potential consequences for democracy and the rule of law remain.